2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Mar 2011 14:57

somnathji - the current rise in oil prices hasn't helped, however oil used to be significantly cheaper than gas (marginal cost of production). Gas is actually not that great for base load because of that (comparatively), but it is excellent for peak load due to the rapid plant spool up of running gas turbines
oil is being phased out, but it aint gone yet, and in some places remains the dominant fuel for power stations. though if coal is available, it is used

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Mar 2011 17:43

Lalmohan wrote:somnathji - the current rise in oil prices hasn't helped, however oil used to be significantly cheaper than gas (marginal cost of production). Gas is actually not that great for base load because of that (comparatively), but it is excellent for peak load due to the rapid plant spool up of running gas turbines
oil is being phased out, but it aint gone yet, and in some places remains the dominant fuel for power stations. though if coal is available, it is used

Lalmohan-ji, you are right..But oil (and derivatives like naphtha) was competitive @ 20-25 dollars/barrel...At 120,

Gas on the other hand has a unique advantage over most fossil fuels, ie, in terms of its market structure...Bulk of the gas is traded on bilateral contracts, which are typically long term...As a result, consumers of gas are relatively insulated fro the volatility of general oil prices...But issue is availability - it is very very restricted, and again, all new discoveries are already "tied up" in bilateral contracts - the Kg basin in India for example...But it is a flexible source - can switch easily...

Now if nuke plants can, as the new Gen III reactors claim to, then it is a completely new dimension...We will never know till we operate them, and hence I guess the contract for Areva EPR...but some people will keep complaining about "unproven tech", even if Srikumar Bannerjee certifies it

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Mar 2011 18:01

amit wrote: My handheld giving trouble.

Time to get married?

amit · Post by **amit** » 29 Mar 2011 18:14

shiv wrote:
amit wrote: My handheld giving trouble.
Time to get married?

LOL!

Guess we need to add "again"! AoA!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 19:16

GuruPrabhu wrote:On second thought, I will impose a self "send away". Sayonara.

This is sad, though I understand "Yatra dardura vakta tatr maunum hee shobhnam" sentiments. Anyway FWIW, echoing Ramana, thanks on the behalf of those who are willing to learn.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Mar 2011 19:33

somnath-ji
yes and no on gas. one of the key things about energy market de-regulation in the EU and the US was to create more tradeable markets in both gas and power, the idea being to drive further efficiencies and not necessarily hold large stocks of gas. gas is actively traded and can be quite volatile in terms of price, as can oil. The nordic region and holland have good markets in these and gas trading is gaining in popularity. the risk management of gas contracts is very much in focus. what is key is that any country has a portfolio of power generation assets and supply chains in order to guarantee a steady supply. the US saw massive blackouts a few years ago because gas/oil prices shot through the roof and the power companies couldn't afford to buy fuel. In a portfolio model, maintaining reliability in base load supply is very critical. most developed economies have HUGE baseload requirements and generally very short lived but high peak load requirements, e.g. during football matches, or during commercial breaks during popular programmes on TV (one of the highest demand spikes in the UK was created by the simultaneous switching on of millions of electric kettles to make tea during a commercial break during a very popular soap operas... the grid barely managed to keep functioning!)

in 'developed economy' power supply/demand balance scenarios therefore, there is a huge need for cheap, reliable and available baseload by the TW. gas simply is not affordable for this

therefore nuclear - though and this is very important - capex for nukes is usually underwritten by government funds - which is the price paid for energy security

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 21:15

Endlessly repeated but perceptive and numbers help.

Sanku wrote:Arnab denial never helped anyone.
<snip>
{Just one example out to many}

Prediction 4: This is a disaster of unimaginable proportion – workers are being exposed to more than 100 msv ! (response: yes and please check the facts above)
The facts are that 17 workers are in serious condition in hospital.

Facts:
Backdrop : Tens of thousands of people dead, and many more in hospitals with serious conditions due to earthquake, tsunami, and even cancer due to smoking, but NONE of them are in the hospital in "serious condition" or otherwise due to radiation poisoning tied with that 100msv (or any other dose) of Fukushima plant. At least NOT according to any published reports.

Besides, even if we take that highly hysterical number of 17, it is still less than.. oh what number ...much quoted, never corrected, 850,000? of cancer deaths. ( If that number is not correct, would someone (Ramanaji - you could put that number here) put that number?)

Just for perspective, Firefighters of Chernobyl's typical radiation dose (actually absorbed) was more than 100,000 mSV. (And horrible that, as it is, it still did not cause 850,000 deaths).

I will just quote from Sankuji again:

Self denial and lack of knowledge are present in only a few here.

Ramana - Hope this is not taken as a flame bait.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 29 Mar 2011 21:20

amit wrote:This discussion can go on and on in circles without any resolution till the Fukushima crisis is defused (as it surely will be) a couple of months down the line. For every doomsday article about how the world is coming to an end due to Fukushima there are others which show that while the situation is bad it's not cataclysmic in nature.

So IMO what we need to look at is, what does this mean for India and Indian nuclear power plans?

Given what happened in Fukushima should we:

a) Become avowedly anti-nuclear and go for coal-fired plants?

b) Take a resolution not to buy American or anything tainted by the Americans, for example Japanese reactor containment vessels?

c) Learn from what happened in Fukushima and try to design our nuclear plants (particularly the layout and location) to avoid something similar since, given our electricity needs, we cannot ignore nuclear.

d) Scale back our electricity needs so that we don't have so much high base load demand?

e) Set up a panel of "international" experts to guide us on what we should do.

It would be interesting if folks who have been so critical of how the Japanese have handled Fukushima and about nuclear power in general take an attempt on this.

And Oh, let me say I think (C) is the best way forward.

This is some perspective that needs closer look. Does this perspective presuppose that nuclear energy is panacea or does it highlight the fact that nuclear energy is one more small piece of the energy puzzle.
Currently on a global scale only 3% of energy needs are met by nuclear energy. That is also reflected closely in Indian scene, where less than 2% of energy is through nuclear route.
Optimistically, even if it is magically increased to meet 8% of energy needs in India, it still is not going to be a game changer for a whole lot of Indian masses. But, having said that every avenue needs to be tapped, including nuclear and/or non. To claim that nuclear energy alone is going to propel India out of dark ages is a pitch by vested interests who will gain by selling that kind of snake oil. Realistic assesment what it can and what it cannot do is the need of the hour.
There are all the usual arguments for and against usage of nuclear fuel for energy needs. (The peak nuclear fuel availability, such as peak oil scenario needs to be factored in. Some estimates by 2045 world will run out of natural reserves of nuclear fuel. Any references would be helpful.)

My vote is for D). We should return to our Indic roots and Vedic times. Why do we need electricity at all?

But there may be an element of truth, in the above assertion.
Because vedic way guarantees preservation of life, while other neo scientific way is trying to enhance life-style with a potential to end life over a larger footprint. Life-style without life will be meaningless. Balance is the key.
The main argument should be to realistically assess the merits and demerits of centralized energy generation versus distributed energy generation: and life time cost associated with each of the paths.
Bottom line, nuclear energy is not going to dramatically alter the life style of all Indians. But it will mitigate some of the needs and there is no need to shun it, when properly done. Beyond that insisting: by going nuclear energy route as coming of age life style statement is just hookey.
What does this imply? It means if one has limited means of resources at ones disposal, it is wise to invest prudently in different energy paths, and not put all eggs in one basket.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Mar 2011 21:23

the iaea site reports that the 3 guys hospitalised from the pool foot dipping incident with suspected beta burns have been released from hospital

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 21:42

Few comments about Abhisekh's post some time ago:

..Studies of nuclear accidents have been less useful for estimating dose responses, although they confirm that it's hard to see health effects from low-level exposures. The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania exposed the nearby population to a “trivial” amount of radiation, Boice says; health effects were not detected. The 1986 Chernobyl accident, on the other hand, spewed iodine-131 and cesium-137 for 10 days in a plume that reached 5 million people. Researchers expect that 4000 excess cancer deaths will eventually result. But precise dose information is lacking even for the “liquidators,” the 600,000 workers who helped clean up, says Mabuchi, making it difficult to link exposure to disease.

The only clear health effect among the public from Chernobyl so far has been more than 6000 cases of thyroid cancer (15 of them fatal), mainly in people who as children and adolescents drank milk from cows that fed on grass tainted with iodine-131. This should “not be a problem in Japan”

1 - The "4000" excess deaths was low-end estimation by most experts (at least from those outside - then USSR). Most though (I included) the numbers would be many times higher. Unlike Japan, we did not have quantitative data.. From radiation levels in Europe, we were able to calculate that many tons of (actual amount turned out to be thousand ton or so of all the material put together) must have spewed out. Later learned that people near Chernobyl learned the seriousness from shortwave broadcasts and not from official sources. They wondered why there was yellow mud, just after rain. ityadi ityadi .. (I highly recommend reading about this from any good source, there is much to learn from that horrible accident)

2- Milk from cows that fed on grass tainted with I-131 was bad. Worse was that many actually added Iodine in milk (I did not know that before, but some add it in milk like some of us, add haldi). (By Iodine, I don't mean KI tablets aka Japan - but Iodine laced with I-131). Again we could learn something from this.

3. There is much learning for us by reading about how they organized those 600,000 workers who helped clean up (areas with such high radiation that 'safe' limit some time lasted minutes of exposure only)

4. The eventual death rate (much smaller, in tens, rather than in thousands) among those who were exposed (outside the immediate facility) , surprised everyone.

Hth.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 21:57

Lalmohan wrote:The rise and spread of Oehmen's blog on Fukushima
MIT Site

Let me, just add

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 22:00

Lalmohan wrote:the iaea site reports that the 3 guys hospitalised from the pool foot dipping incident with suspected beta burns have been released from hospital

Thanks...People owe it to brf to either retract or put a link to the item about
'17 people in serious condition in hospital'

Also, just to be sure, per report:

Three workers were taken to hospital after exposure to the water, but have now been discharged with no ill effects.

17 people in serious condition in hospital? Really? Link?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 22:21

shiv wrote:From a practical viewpoint, how on earth does one go about confirming whether a containment vessel has been breached or not?

In the days before ultrasound and CT scans there was a surgical adage to remind surgeons to consider hidden areas where pus could form unless one thought of looking for it. It was "Pus somewhere . Pus nowhere. Pus under diaphragm?" The meaning is: "Pus somewhere (the patient has fever and other signs of possible bacterial infection). Pus nowhere to be found (No obvious source of infection is detectable). Consider infection hidden under the diaphragm.

The current problem seems to be similar. People are claiming that there is a radiation leak. (Pus somewhere) but nobody knows where that leak may be or even if it has actually occurred (Pus nowhere). Could it be from the fuel rods (Pus under diaphragm?) How can one practically confirm or deny this in the absence of ultrasound/CT scans for nuclear reactors?

Shiv - FWIW: serious answer to your query: Think of Tc scan, and how you use it to check out, say, heart function.

Also, unlike "pus somewhere", a simple MSP can get the fingerprint of isotropic composition of leaked material and get pretty good idea of its origin. This is how they know which sample of Pu came from atmospheric atomic bombs and which sample came from reactor fuel. (Actually it is not that hard to even find out which reactor, even if the sample is decades old and the fuel is from far away reactor, as long as we have good data about the fuel origin/time/characteristics of that particular reactor )

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Mar 2011 23:09

After all that banana nonsense .. one more thing one can learn from brf

An aam aam (ordinary mango), or at least a mango which is exported to USA typically gets a full body dose of 4, 000,000 mSV (some one correct me if I am wrong). (No, it does not radiate later, nor it is harmful to eat - Its just a number so that, so that one understand that radiation equipments are serious business)

I mention this, because radiation readings (specially those which are around background level) are constantly described here in brf as "high" and what not. I think brf members and other deshbhakts owe it to themselves to learn the meaning of these numbers.

Here is one item posted before:

One team made gamma dose-rate measurements in the Tokyo and Chiba region at 3 locations. Gamma-dose rates measured ranged from 0.08 to 0.13 microsievert per hour, which is within or slightly above the background.

One does not need hysterics shown by some here, to understand the meaning of .08 microsievert/hr (= .00008 mSv/hr which is about (less than) 1mSV/yr).

Background level is about 3 mSV/yr.. much more , if you are living in a stone/brick/marble house.. or near a radon well....or live next to some one who smokes..or .. near a truck of bananas (or Brazil nuts) .. or .. Granite counters (lot of uranium).. ..or ..Kitty Litter (lots of Th).. or had a x-ray...or went through one of these airport scanners...

You don't need me to tell you, just use a radiation meter...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Mar 2011 00:01

More voices openly saying that meltdown has happened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... CMP=twt_gu

At Fukushima, workers have been pumping water into three reactors in a desperate bid to keep the fuel rods from melting down. But Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at the plant, said his analysis of radiation levels suggested these attempts had failed at reactor two.

He said at least part of the molten core, which includes melted fuel rods and zirconium alloy cladding, seemed to have sunk through the steel "lower head" of the pressure vessel and on to the concrete floor below.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2011 00:11

If Lahey is right then this is worse or greater than TMI where the reactor vessel was able to stop the melt.
Lets wait for more data.
Sometime the problem with experts is we dont know if they are Cassandras (doom and gloom) or Pollyannas (rosy picture)!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 00:20

Wrt to Pu found in the samples.

Here is another fact, my effort to educate, and to put the number is perspective.

Plutonium is a thousand times less poisonous than botulism toxin (the active ingredient in botox).

Hope this sparks some curiosity and people do some of their own reading to understand.
(After all, considering where we live, dirty-bomb type scenario with Pu is not impossible, we ought to know real danger and how to protect ourselves)

Read up on it, if you already do not know. Facts like, the toxicity when it is inhaled (very toxic) is much higher than when it is ingested, while proximity to it of not much concerns. These facts are not only academic, or means of scoring debating points here, these are very important issues we all should consider. As I said, dirty-bomb scenario is not impossible. What is more scary is that interrogation of Paddila (?) has given US lot of details about AlQ (or ISI)'s thinking.

Anyway .. was going to write a longer post but there is enough information out in open sources.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 00:25

ramana wrote:...
Sometime the problem with experts is we dont know if they are Cassandras (doom and gloom) or Pollyannas (rosy picture)!

With all due respect, it is not that hard, just look at the numbers, basic math and lack of internal contradiction.

(among other things..)

Throwing up hands in the air, and do a == (to equate a Jihn Thermodynamics guy with all other experts, for example) ought not to be an option for thinking people.

Added later: To be clear, I have no comments on Lahey's data, or his expertise. ( except, he is not saying that he has seen the actual data)

I don't know if many know here, that one ex-brf postor who used to post here quite often, sits on a nuclear reactor safety board... sure it would have been nice to hear this person's views.

Side comment on LKahey's data: I know TMI data pretty well, do not have much data (I suspect, no one else has all the data either, as the situation is far from over) on the present NPP, so let us wait, we sure will know about it soon.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2011 01:00

AmberG,
I said the same thing that we don't know if Lahey is alarmist?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Mar 2011 01:05

More data about presence of clear numbers suggesting that Tsunami was a greater danger than anticipated early on (this information was available in 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110329/ts_ ... lear_risks

Special Report: Japan engineers knew tsunami could overrun plant
Reuters

But a review of company and regulatory records shows that Japan and its largest utility repeatedly downplayed dangers and ignored warnings -- including a 2007 tsunami study from Tokyo Electric Power Co's senior safety engineer.

"We still have the possibilities that the tsunami height exceeds the determined design height due to the uncertainties regarding the tsunami phenomenon," Tokyo Electric researchers said in a report reviewed by Reuters.

The research paper concluded that there was a roughly 10 percent chance that a tsunami could test or overrun the defenses of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant within a 50-year span based on the most conservative assumptions.

But Tokyo Electric did nothing to change its safety planning based on that study, which was presented at a nuclear engineering conference in Miami in July 2007.

It represented the product of several years of work at Japan's top utility, prompted by the 2004 earthquake off the coast of Sumatra that had shaken the industry's accepted wisdom. In that disaster, the tsunami that hit Indonesia and a dozen other countries around the Indian Ocean also flooded a nuclear power plant in southern India.

"It's a bit strange for me that we have officials saying this was outside expectations," said Hideaki Shiroyama, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has studied nuclear safety policy. "Unexpected things can happen. That's the world we live in."

He added: "Both the regulators and TEPCO are trying to avoid responsibility."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 01:09

arnab wrote:
Amit saar,
It is not a question of whether nuke is cataclysimic or not. It is bringing to the table an informed opinion. I’m afraid certain posters take the BRF motto of ‘being ahead of the curve’ a bit too seriously. Let us look at this objectively.

Fact: A tsunami / earthquake knocks out power generators at Fukashima, leading to LOCA and venting/leakage of radioactive material. TEPCO / IAEA says that it is a serious accident hence emergency provisions are initiated – viz. evacuation, radiation monitoring, isolation of tainted food / milk and most importantly – transmission channels of information (None of these happened in Chernobyl where there was a core meltdown and most deaths there are occurring due to people who drank the contaminated milk. So in that sense this is a huge improvement in processes).

Tepco also increases the permissible level of dosage in a nuke emergency for workers from 100 msv to 250 msv (this is still below the IAEA emergency allowable limits of 500 msv). Certain death due to radiation happens at around 10,000 msv – just to put it in perspective.

With these facts one can have a rational discussion. But no, predictions flow forth!

Prediction 1: This is a disaster of unimaginable proportion – reactor explosion is imminent! (response: nope)

<snip Prediction 1-6>
Prediction 6: This is a disaster of unimaginable proportion – IAEA is holding a conference on what went wrong! (response: nope this is what organizations do)

Regarding your options, how about an option (f) which includes developing a mechanisim of 'self denial', that we seem to have done with coal related deaths

Arnab: Thanks for a well written post.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 01:12

ramana wrote:AmberG,
I said the same thing that we don't know if Lahey is alarmist?

I agree with you 400%.. My point was, to add: let us also look and analyze their analysis and have our own judgement (vs assuming all experts are equal). I was hoping that you will give your own expert perspective, as you have done in the past.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2011 01:14

Wiki now has a good page on Fukushima Plant-I and II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_ ... ower_Plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_ ... ower_Plant

Gives details of design basis eqk and the desing basis tsunami.

Interesting that the design basis eqk for Plant I was different for later units.

The tusnami height at the plant(14.0M) was twice the design basis height(5.7M)

One can calculate the probability of that occuring from the data. Real extreme value effect.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Mar 2011 02:55

if you want to know detailed specifics of the BWR plant, you can find it here

also, latest from iaea, recommend everyone to read it in full, has lots of data on status of pumps, reactors, power supplies, radiation levels, plutonium, marine radiation, tests on fish, etc., etc. a team from a french research institute has done modelling studies of the oceanic dispersion, results indicate a NE direction of flow away from fukushima

IAEA Fukushima update

the lahey article in the guardian is from several days ago, it is not clear what data he is basing his opinions on

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 30 Mar 2011 04:46

Amber G. wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:the iaea site reports that the 3 guys hospitalised from the pool foot dipping incident with suspected beta burns have been released from hospital
Thanks...People owe it to brf to either retract or put a link to the item about
'17 people in serious condition in hospital'
Also, just to be sure, per report:
Three workers were taken to hospital after exposure to the water, but have now been discharged with no ill effects.
17 people in serious condition in hospital? Really? Link?

I hope some kind soul will elaborate as to what is the threshold for a 'disaster of unimaginable consequences'. So far, it appears that the nuke accident has put 3 people in hospital temporarily

(never mind the verbal calisthenics which transformed 17 people recieving > 100msv radiation into 17 people in a hospital in serious condition)

It would be nice if they could put it in the context of say - a disaster like the Tsunami which has killed more than 17,000 people.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2011 05:49

old report deleted ...sorry

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Mar 2011 05:55

JwalaMukhi wrote:Currently on a global scale only 3% of energy needs are met by nuclear energy. That is also reflected closely in Indian scene, where less than 2% of energy is through nuclear route.
Optimistically, even if it is magically increased to meet 8% of energy needs in India, it still is not going to be a game changer for a whole lot of Indian masses. But, having said that every avenue needs to be tapped, including nuclear and/or non. To claim that nuclear energy alone is going to propel India out of dark ages is a pitch by vested interests who will gain by selling that kind of snake oil. Realistic assesment what it can and what it cannot do is the need of the hour.

Agree with you on this. Nuclear is not a silver bullet but is it a bullet that we can afford to ignore? I think not and from your post above I assume you think the same.

The reason I wrote that post was because from the perspective of a forum such a BRF which is intensely focused on India I think it serves no purpose to keep on scavenging for doom and gloom articles about Fukushima without trying to understand what is the implication of this nuclear incident for India.

It is for this reason I asked Sanku to take a position - instead of indulging in meaningless polemics - on whether India should abandon the nuclear bullet or learn from this incident and try to design even more safety features in our present and future plants. However, he refuses to take this questions as it involves taking a stand (not that I'm surprised).

As I wrote earlier this incident is going to go on for several months and there will be articles with various shades of opinion. In short we could go on reading how "17 persons have been seriously injured", "this is worse than Chernobyl", "there is a major nuclear disaster every 10 years" and other such gems without getting to any conclusion.

Bad mouthing the Japanese and alleging stupidity on their part and cover up are juvenile idiocity. For Pete's sake 17,000 people have died, the infrastructure is in a shambles and on top of that Fukushima. And we sit safely in front of our computers and rant against their alleged "incompetence".

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Mar 2011 06:00

arnab wrote: I hope some kind soul will elaborate as to what is the threshold for a 'disaster of unimaginable consequences'. So far, it appears that the nuke accident has put 3 people in hospital temporarily (never mind the verbal calisthenics which transformed 17 people recieving > 100msv radiation into 17 people in a hospital in serious condition)

It would be nice if they could put it in the context of say - a disaster like the Tsunami which has killed more than 17,000 people.

The threshold should be pretty high by now as we've been having a "major nuclear disaster every 10 years". Right?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Mar 2011 06:39

amit wrote: Agree with you on this. Nuclear is not a silver bullet but is it a bullet that we can afford to ignore? I think not and from your post above I assume you think the same.

Nuclear isnt a silver bullet solution for India's energy needs...Nothing is, barring coal at the moment..

But its interesting that people who otherwise make facile comments on the sanctity and safety (!) of the "3 cycle" programme have now converted themselves into Greenpeace activists...I had posted here sometime back an article by George Monbiot on nuke energy post-Fukushima..A card-carrying environmentalist like him too is a "nuclear convert" now...

Running a nuclear power programme is about retaining the options for India...If gas runs out in 30 years time (10% of installed capacity is in gas), we should be in a position to have alternative technologies...And in the basket of "alterantives", nuclear remains the most economic - why throw it away?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2011 07:23

Amber G. wrote:much quoted, never corrected, 850,000? of cancer deaths. ( If that number is not correct, would someone (Ramanaji - you could put that number here) put that number?)

AmberG - that 850,000 figure needs to be discarded as wrong, or dubious at best.

I missed the original posts about 850,000 cancer deaths in Russia - if that was the original reference.

For perspective here is a ref about cancer deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541

Cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 1958-1987.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki tumour registries, which have been in operation since 1958, are among the few population-based cancer registries in Japan. This analysis evaluated cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki between 1958 and 1987. The overall age-adjusted (World Population Standard) cancer incidence has increased from 217 to 301 per 100,000 among males, and from 176 to 197 per 100,000 among females during the first 30 years of cancer registration. The most recent rates are intermediate to rates in other countries.

Based on these figures my rough calculation tells me that the figure 850,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone would require a total radiation exposed population (from Chernobyl) of 87 million people over 20 years or 1,750 million (1.75 billion) people in the first year after Chernobyl - assuming a 20% increase in cancer rate.

There is nothing to indicate that such huge numbers were affected. The total is greater than the population of Russia and Western Europe in 1988.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Mar 2011 07:41

somnath wrote:Nuclear isnt a silver bullet solution for India's energy needs...

Actually there will come a time when we will lean very heavily on nuclear.

India has 1/3 of the worlds Thorium. A fast breeder type reactor program will provide us all the energy we need for the next 2,000 years.

There are several problems however.

- Right now Uranium is very very cheap. On the order of $100 per kg.
- Fast breeder reactors are substantially more expensive and complicated to use.
- The fuel will have to be reprocessed at very high cost. Read above on how cheap Uranium is again.
- Lots of Plutonium is produced.
- And finally to my mind the show stopper. Almost all fast breeder designs use liquid metal. Usually Sodium, sometimes lead. As you can imagine this is fantastically unstable technology. There has already been a major Sodium reactor accident in the US.

But there will come a day when this will be our power source. Kalpakkam is building a 500 MW prototype on the path to Thorium burning at great cost as we speak. Liquid Sodium type. Rs 6000 crore + per what I've heard, so far... ..should be commissioned soon. 4 more on the way, per reports. Gulp!

Dated Pic.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 07:59

Hello all: This appeared in Wall Street Journal in 83, yet in many ways still very relevant to the present situation.

Most Scientists Reject Radiation Phobia

Bernard L. Cohen

Polls of college students and members of the League of Women Voters in Oregon found that both groups believe that nuclear power is their No. 1 "present risk of death," outranking motor-vehicle accidents that kill 50,000 Americans each year and 12 other hazards that kill more than 1,000 each. Yet scientific studies find that the number of deaths expected from nuclear power, including accidents, radioactive waste and everything else, is less than 10 per year; even the principal anti-nuclear activist organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), estimates less than 150. Clearly, even well-educated segments of the American public are badly misinformed.

Another poll found that more that 80% of the public believes that nuclear power is more dangerous than its principal competitor, coal burning, which is typically estimated to kill 10,000 Americans each year with its air pollution -- some studies estimate 50,000. Every single study (at least 20, including one by UCS) has reached the opposite conclusion, that coal burning is much more dangerous. Clearly, the 80% is badly misinformed.

As a consequence of this misinformation, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars per life saved by protecting people from radiation, while we are disdaining to spend one-thousandth of that amount to protect people from disease, automobile accidents, and other common dangers.

This is a tragic situation, unnecessarily killing thousands of people and wasting billions of dollars every year. Who is to blame? Since the public gets its nuclear information from the media, electronic and print, journalism must be the culprit. Let's see how it has operated.

One of its worst sins is over coverage. More than 100 accidents involving transport of radioactive material have received national media coverage in the past few decades, but the radiation exposure in all of them combined has less than a 1% chance of causing even a single death. How does this square with the 300 Americans killed in accidents every day, with hardly any media coverage? There was tremendous coverage of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident although all investigations have concluded that there was never any significant danger to the public -- the media still haven't transmitted that message and continue to imply that TMI was a near miss on disaster.

Another problem with nuclear journalism is the use of inflammatory language -- "deadly radiation," and "lethal radioactivity." Why do we never hear about "deadly" automobiles or "lethal" electricity that electrocutes 1,200 Americans per year? Or about "lethal" water that drowns 8,000 each year?

Another journalistic failing is in not trying to help the public understand the dangers of radiation. The best way to do this, always used by scientists in trying to enlighten the public, is to compare the radiation being reported with the much higher radiation doses we all receive from natural sources or medical X-rays. The radiation due to an accident in Rochester, N.Y., nuclear plant last year was a leading national news story for two days, but with all that coverage the public was never told that no one got as much radiation as he gets every day from natural sources.

The media frequently imply that health effects of radiation are poorly understood by scientists. Actually, every involved scientist recognizes that radiation effects are far better understood than air pollution, food additives, chemical wastes and almost any environmental agent. In contrast with the latter examples, all national and international scientific commissions charged with estimating the health effects of radiation obtain similar results.

Journalists continually consult a small handful of "renegade" scientists who have been trying to frighten the public about the dangers of radiation. They very seldom give well respected scientists a chance to rebut their arguments, choosing instead to use utility executives or government bureaucrats, with the all-but-open implication that their credibility is suspect.

How can a journalist tell who is a "respected scientist" or what is a scientific "consensus" on a subject? It's easy. Call a few randomly chosen high-quality universities; ask to speak to a professor of radiation health, and pop the question. The results would be at least 95% consistent in most cases. When journalists interviewing me question my statements, I always ask them to do this but no one ever has. The usual journalist line is that the scientific community is split -- they imply into equal halves --{ } on the dangers of radiation, with one side dominated by government -- or industry supported scientists fearful of economic reprisal.

Journalists frequently make implicit judgments on scientific issues, treating them like political or social issues on which everyone is entitled to an opinion. They do not recognize that a scientific consensus is based on vast amounts of data, techniques and experience, and is normally agreed upon by over 90% of those possessing these. The public wants and is entitled to be informed of the scientific consensus, but instead it gets the opinions of journalists. For example, to the question, "Are the estimated dangers of radiation larger now than they were 10 years ago?" the scientific consensus is a resounding "no," but the media has told the public that it is "yes." Note that this is a strictly scientific question, with no room for political considerations.

But the worst journalist sin is failure to put risks into perspective. People can understand new risks only by comparing them with risks that are familiar. {Hence banana equivalent dose }Let's do it here, deriving the nuclear risk estimates from typical scientific analyses but also including (in parenthesis) those from the anti-nuclear UCS. The present risk to the average American from the nuclear-power industry is equivalent to that of smoking one cigarette in one's life (one cigarette per year according to UCS), of an overweight person increasing his weight by 0.004 ounces (0.2 ounces), crossing a street one extra time every three years (every three weeks) or increasing the national speed limit form 55 to 55.003 (55.13) miles per hour.

I doubt if 1% of our citizenry recognizes that the risks of nuclear power are as low as indicated by these comparisons. By failing to put these risks into proper perspective, journalists have failed in their responsibility to inform the American public.

These failures of journalism are costing our nation thousands of unnecessary deaths and wasting billions of dollars every year. Moreover, they have quadrupled the inflation-corrected cost of new electric power in the U.S., making it twice as expensive as in Europe or Japan. We can only surmise what economic havoc this will wreak in the next few decades.

This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on 11/30/83, but it still applies today, in 2002. Bernard L. Cohen has authored six books and over 300 papers in scientific journals, and he was awarded the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award.
Link:http://russp.org/nucpower.htm

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Mar 2011 09:13

shiv wrote:
Amber G. wrote:much quoted, never corrected, 850,000? of cancer deaths. ( If that number is not correct, would someone (Ramanaji - you could put that number here) put that number?)
AmberG - that 850,000 figure needs to be discarded as wrong, or dubious at best.

I missed the original posts about 850,000 cancer deaths in Russia - if that was the original reference.

Shiv, Of course that number is wrong, IMO, but the number (actually it is 985,000 or such number) comes from Chaanakya's post:
Linked here

He was referring to http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/MC23Dh02.html

Other reports give total death at 57 or so.
There were dozens of posts followed, I have repeatedly ask what number in his opinion may be closer to the truth but he kept dodging the question. You can read his, GuruPrabhu and my posts to get better context.

Bottom line: the number is akin to 900,000,000,000 troops in Cashemere as claimed by some.

Chaankaya, if I have misrepresented you just put your corrected version. TIA.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2011 09:13

Confidence Slips Away as Japan Battles Nuclear Peril

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world ... japan.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Mar 2011 09:48

abhishek_sharma wrote:Confidence Slips Away as Japan Battles Nuclear Peril

I am truly sorry how the effort for the longest time was more to convince people that there is no problem and providing perspectives from death due to drinking too much water and other such relevant matters rather than being a frank fair assessment of the real situation with actions concomitant to such a assessment.

That too when the writing was on the wall, pretty much.

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Mar 2011 10:13

abhishek_sharma wrote:Confidence Slips Away as Japan Battles Nuclear Peril

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world ... japan.html

An interesting paragraph in this article:

Kuni Yogo, a former atomic energy policy planner in the Japan Science and Technology Agency, said: “There is some trial and error, but this is the beginning of a three- to five-year effort.”

amit · Post by **amit** » 30 Mar 2011 10:14

Sanku wrote:That too when the writing was on the wall, pretty much.

So Sanku,

What is the implication of this to India? Should we or should we not abandon nuclear power generation?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2011 10:17

abhishek_sharma wrote:Confidence Slips Away as Japan Battles Nuclear Peril

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world ... japan.html

Tokyo Electric is also struggling to replace workers at the crippled plant, who must be cycled out as they approach a cumulative radiation exposure limit set by the Japanese government.

The Pakistanis can solve this. There are 180 million of them. Even if you expose 100 Pakis a day at the nuke plant - it will be 30 years before you get through a million of them. Pk can defeat Pu.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 30 Mar 2011 10:20

shiv wrote:The Pakistanis can solve this. There are 180 million of them. Even if you expose 100 Pakis a day at the nuke plant - it will be 30 years before you get through a million of them. Pk can defeat Pu.

Yes - that may bolster NYTs slipping confidence

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Mar 2011 10:21

Sanku wrote:That too when the writing was on the wall, pretty much.

Sanku,

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. The 'experts' can talk till they are blue in the face. The public expects zero increase in radiation by a nuclear plant. Not 10%, not 5%, but 0%.

All this arguing on this board has not changed one mind, one way or the other. Personally I understand the issue but I fear this nuclear demon. If we are not careful or even if we are careful it has the potential to devour us. All this blithe talk about acceptable radiation levels is just that talk. No one can guarantee that a 1/millionth gram speck of plutonium will not find its way into your lungs where it can prove fatal. That is all it would take. In such aerosolized form 10 kg of Plutonium is enough to kill every last human on earth. That is its true potential.

It is wise to fear it.

As far as Fukushima, the concrete tomb and permanent evacuation zone point has been reached. They should get on with it rather than futzing around. There shouldn't be anymore workers walking around in there.

This is something all the 'studies' on Chernobyl deaths miss. We talk like this problem is over. There is still something like 10,000 tons of long term, 100,000 years+, radioactive waste buried under that concrete in Chernobyl. For the next 100,000 years anyone who gets close for more that 30 seconds will probably suffer a fatal dose. At some point, as the concrete underneath disintegrates and the concrete above collapses, someone is going to have to go in there to deal with it once more. 3-mile has the same problem though of much much lesser magnitude. By the reports coming in now Fukushima might be approaching Chernobyl's long term pollution threshold.